The Probate Lawyer Blogtag:typepad.com,2003:weblog-17839242014-01-09T10:34:00-05:00Famous Fortune Fights!
by Andy & Danielle MayorasTypePadFarrah Fawcett Portrait Trial Ends In Favor Of Ryan O'Nealtag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a01053645c43a970b019b0460598e970d2014-01-09T10:34:00-05:002014-01-09T10:34:00-05:00Farrah Fawcett‘s estate planning wishes have been at the center of a number of lawsuits, as we describe in this article about Ryan O’Neal. O’Neal was sued by the University of Texas, which claimed that he wrongfully removed the famed Andy Warhol Farrah Fawcett painting from her home after she died. O’Neal defended himself, saying that this copy of the painting was his and he had permission to take it back after Fawcett died. The University of Texas disagreed, suing O’Neal back in 2011. The University’s lawyers felt that, because Fawcett’s revocable living trust left all of her artwork to...Danielle & Andy

Farrah Fawcett‘s estate planning wishes have been at the center of a number of lawsuits, as we describe in this article about Ryan O’Neal. O’Neal was sued by the University of Texas, which claimed that he wrongfully removed the famed Andy Warhol Farrah Fawcett painting from her home after she died. O’Neal defended himself, saying that this copy of the painting was his and he had permission to take it back after Fawcett died.

The University of Texas disagreed, suing O’Neal back in 2011. The University’s lawyers felt that, because Fawcett’s revocable living trust left all of her artwork to the University, it should be the rightful owner of the Farrah Fawcett paining, not O’Neal. It turns out there were actually two copies of the famed portrait, and the University already received one of them. But it sued O’Neal for the other one too.

The case proceeded to trial last month, lasting three weeks. O’Neal called several witnesses, including former friends of Fawcett and her former caregiver, who all testified that the second copy of the painting belonged to O’Neal. He testified that Warhol gave him the second copy, because he was the one who brokered the deal for the famous portrait to be made in the 1970′s.

The University countered that Fawcett said on her reality show that she was considering selling one of her two paintings, and she signed documents loaning the portraits to a museum where she listed herself as the owner. Reportedly, there were also insurance documents supporting that Fawcett owned both copies of the portrait.

However, in the end, the jury felt — by a vote of 9 to 3 — that O’Neal really did own the painting. O’Neal was undergoing surgery when the verdict came out, and he said that when his son called to tell him the good news, tears and blood streamed down his face.

Interestingly, shortly after the verdict, O’Neal gave an interview to the Today show, during which he said he spoke to Fawcett and she gave him permission to do the interview. He also explained how he felt that he was always the true owner, and the University was convinced to sue after an enemy of his sent 90 emails to University regents accusing O’Neal of stealing it.

O’Neal says he never will sell the Farrah Fawcett painting — which may be worth millions (experts gave differing values of the artwork at trial). Instead, he will make sure that Redmond — the son he fathered with Fawcett — will inherit it and keep it in the family. O’Neal says the portrait is all he has of Fawcett and treasures its sentimental value.

While spending years in litigation over a single piece of art is unusual, family fights over valuable or sentimental personal property left by a deceased loved one are far from uncommon. Indeed, when people pass along property by gifting it to someone, there is often a fight over whether the gift was valid — especially when the gift is inconsistent with estate planning documents, like wills and trusts.

It’s a good lesson to always transfer personal property of value — whether monetary or sentimental — in a manner consistent with a will or trust, and with the giver’s intent documented in writing. That way, there won’t be confusion and fighting over who really owned it.

In this case, O’Neal was asked during the Today Show interview why Farrah Fawcett didn’t make her wishes more clear. He responded that there was no reason for her to do so because the portrait was always his. Considering the conflicting documents on this point, and the fact that it hung in her house — not his — when she died, this answer does not make much sense.

No Happy Mothers Day: Kobe Bryant Disputes Mother In Lawsuittag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a01053645c43a970b01910221b43e970c2013-05-14T13:37:32-04:002013-05-15T12:21:56-04:00Kobe Bryant, long-time Los Angeles Laker and future Hall-of-Famer, is in a bitter feud with his own mother over ownership of memorabilia potentially worth more than one million dollars. He’s locked in a he-said, she-said dispute about whether he gave the items to his mother or not. Family members are split down the middle about who is telling the truth and who is lying. Kobe’s mother, Pamela Bryant, signed a Consignment Agreement with Goldin Auctions, in New Jersey. In doing so, Pamela gave permission to sell more than 100 items from Kobe’s childhood, including his high school game-worn uniforms, NBA...Danielle & Andy

Kobe Bryant, long-time Los Angeles Laker and future
Hall-of-Famer, is in a bitter feud with his own mother over ownership of
memorabilia potentially worth more than one million dollars. He’s locked in a he-said,
she-said dispute about whether he gave the items to his mother or not.

Kobe’s mother, Pamela Bryant, signed a Consignment Agreement with
Goldin Auctions, in New Jersey. In doing so, Pamela gave permission to
sell more than 100 items from Kobe’s childhood, including his high
school game-worn uniforms, NBA championship rings, and high school
Varsity letters. Goldin Auctions, a noted sports memorabilia
auctioneer, advanced $450,000 to Pamela, which she used to purchase a
house.

The big problem, of course, is that Kobe Bryant says he never
gave the items to his mother and that he certainly never authorized the
auction. He sued the auction house in California to stop the sale, just
days after the auction house sued him in New Jersey to permit the
auction to go forward.

While Kobe is not suing his mother, and she has not sued him, the
heart of the lawsuit boils down to a simple point — did Kobe give the
items to his mother or not? She signed a statement under oath,
testifying to the fact that he said she could have the items years ago
and that he no longer wanted them.

Kobe Bryant and his wife, Vanessa, both signed statements of their
own, also under oath. In them, they testified that Kobe never told his
mother that. To the contrary, they asked Pamela to return the items
years ago so Kobe could give them to his children. Kobe and Vanessa
both stated, under penalties of perjury, that his mother’s statements
were not true. Kobe even accused his mother and the auction house of
obtaining possession of items that he had in his house, without his
knowledge.

ESPN reports that
Kobe is devastated by the dispute. While he wanted to clarify that he
was only suing the auction house, not his mother, clearly the central
fight is between mother and son. If Kobe wins, his mother will have to
repay $450,000 to the auction house for the advance — which she already
spent buying a house. Plus, Goldin Auctions stated in the lawsuit
filing that she has hundreds of additional items, which are collectively
worth $1.5 million or more.

It’s a sad dispute. And unless one side or the other gives in, or
they reach a quick compromise, the legal battle will not end anytime
soon. First, the two courts have to resolve the issue of jurisdiction —
will the case be heard in New Jersey or California?

From there, it will turn primarily on the central issue of who is
telling the truth — Kobe Bryant or his mother? This is a factual
question that can only be resolved by a jury after a full trial. In
other words, it will be a long road if there is no settlement.

Kobe may have to contend with a statute of limitations problem,
however. His mother claims he gave the items to her years ago, and even
Kobe and Vanessa state they asked for the items back “several years
ago.” So, arguably, Kobe should have sued to get the items back then
and not waited until now. Under the law, he might have waited too long
to take legal action to reclaim his property.

Kobe, of course, would contend that he never imagined his mother
would hawk his items for cash, especially given their sentimental value
to him, and there was no harm to letting her store the items. So he
never had a reason to sue before now. Again, this will turn on the
factual question of who is telling the truth. It will likely be a long
road before this question is answered.

This is the nature of disputed gift claims. While it’s unusual for a
star athlete to call his own mother a liar in court, lawsuits over
whether items were actually gifted or not are far from uncommon. They
usually involve family members fighting in probate court about whether
or not the person who died gave them something of monetary or
sentimental value.

Just like with this case, those fights are usually difficult,
emotional, and hard to resolve. Determining who is telling the truth in
a he-said, she-said situation is rarely quick or easy.

That’s why it’s so important for everyone to pass possession of property the right way, through proper estate planning,
such as a will or trust. That way, people can document who they want
to receive what, without leaving it up to a fight about who is telling
the truth.

We can only hope that Kobe Bryant’s family finds peace and a settlement soon. This is no way to spend Mother’s Day.

Another Lawsuit Brewing Because Martin Luther King, Jr., Died Without A Willtag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a01053645c43a970b01675ed20f78970b2011-12-15T21:26:19-05:002012-01-16T14:24:04-05:00There is no doubt about the greatness of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. Unfortunately, his estate planning wasn’t so great. In fact, King made a mistake that too many people make everyday in our country … he procrastinated with his legal planning and died without a will. In large part because of this, his legacy has been marred by fighting among his children over the handling of his estate, including claims of secrecy, mismanagement and misappropriating assets. Years ago, MLK’s heirs formed a corporation to manage King’s estate, but then they fought over control over the corporation. You can read...Danielle & Andy

There is no doubt about the greatness of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. Unfortunately, his estate planning wasn’t so great. In fact, King made a mistake that too many people make everyday in our country … he procrastinated with his legal planning and died without a will.

In large part because of this, his legacy has been marred by fighting among his children over the handling of his estate, including claims of secrecy, mismanagement and misappropriating assets. Years ago, MLK’s heirs formed a corporation to manage King’s estate, but then they fought over control over the corporation. You can read Trial & Heirs’ coverage of the lawsuit between the King children here. Luckily, the heirs were able to reach a settlement and ended that round of fighting.

But, that doesn’t mean the court battles have ended. The corporation which operates the estate turned its attention to a television anchor in Southern Mississippi, named Howard Nelson Ballou. The Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr., Inc., sued Ballou and claimed he has possession of historic documents relating to King.

These include handwritten letters from King, transcripts of speeches he delivered, statements and newsletters he authored, a handwritten letter by Rosa Parks, and similar writings of great importance to King’s efforts in the 1950′s civil rights movement.

Ballou’s parents had been close friends with King and his wife, Coretta Scott King. Ballou’s father was King’s fraternity brother, and his mother had been King’s personal secretary in the 1950′s. She helped him research, type and edit his speeches, answered his mail and made his travel arrangements. She says that, through her relationship with King, he gave her the documents.

Ballou’s mother, Maude Williams Ballou, now 86 years old, recently said in a sworn statement that King wanted her to keep the documents by giving them to her at different times, and telling her, “[H]ere, Maude, this is for you.” She says she always considered the writings to be her personal belongings, and King never asked for them back between then and the day he was assassinated in 1968.

Ballou’s husband stored the documents at Elizabeth City State University, in North Carolina, where he worked until he passed away. The University found the documents in 2007 and gave them to their son, Howard Nelson Ballou. When a local newspaper story mentioned the discovery of the documents, the King heirs took notice.

They sued Ballou in federal court in Mississippi. The Ballou family, unlike the King Estate Corporation, likely does not have endless funds available to pay lawyers for a lawsuit over what King really intended.

Howard Ballou is trying to end the lawsuit early. He filed a motion asking the Judge to dismiss the case, based on the sworn statement of his mother. The King Estate Corporation is arguing against it, saying it’s premature to even think about dismissing the case before its lawyers have been able to question Maude Ballou in a deposition. Those lawyers have pointed out that that any documents which Maude Ballou came to receive as an employee of King may not qualify as gifts. The Judge has not yet ruled on the dismissal request.

Ultimately, it all comes down to what Reverend King intended when he gave the documents to Maude Ballou. Did he want her to hold onto them as an employee, or keep them as gifts? Obviously, no one really knows, making this lawsuit a difficult one.

That is the nature of lawsuits involving gifts and verbal promises. They happen to families of all different means, especially when those who passed away failed to make their intent clear in a will or trust.

King could have clarified his intent rather easily by creating even a simple will. Because he didn’t, the result is an expensive lawsuit where no one really knows what he intended … although Maude swears under oath that the documents were gifts to her and remained as personal belongings to her family ever since.

In our law practice, we see fights over personal property such as jewelry, artwork, furniture, and even Christmas ornaments and family pictures. It’s sadly too common, especially considering how easy it is to prevent court battles like this one.

That’s why everyone should clearly document their intentions in a will or trust, with the help of an experienced estate planning attorney.

L'Oreal fortune fight leads to interesting criminal casetag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a01053645c43a970b0120a75a4966970b2009-12-16T21:28:15-05:002013-04-09T19:18:51-04:00It's been almost a year since The Probate Lawyer Blog featured a story on the court battle over whether the heiress to the L'Oreal fortune has been a victim of fraud and exploitation. 87-year old Liliane Bettencourt has been called Europe's richest woman. In the article I wrote last December, I explained how Bettencourt's daughter, Francoise Bettencourt Meyers, sued to prove that a celebrity photographer had received gifts from the elder Bettencourt of more than one billion dollars by preying on her mental frailty. The gift recipient, Francois-Marie Banier, and Bettencourt said she was competent and made the gifts of...Danielle & Andy

It's been almost a year since The Probate Lawyer Blog featured a story on the court battle over whether the heiress to the L'Oreal fortune has been a victim of fraud and exploitation. 87-year old Liliane Bettencourt has been called Europe's richest woman. In the article I wrote last December, I explained how Bettencourt's daughter, Francoise Bettencourt Meyers, sued to prove that a celebrity photographer had received gifts from the elder Bettencourt of more than one billion dollars by preying on her mental frailty.

The gift recipient, Francois-Marie Banier, and Bettencourt said she was competent and made the gifts of her own free will because they were dear friends. And yes, they said, it's a lot of money, but considering her fortune has been recently valued at $13 billion (U.S. value) by Forbes, it's not that much money. (Anyone buy that?)

I had suggested last year that I found it odd that Meyers hadn't started a guardianship proceeding to have her mother declared legally incompetent. Well, now she has tried that, but the effort failed because Bettencourt refused to submit to a medical evaluation of her mental state, even though a doctor who reviewed her medical records apparently felt she needed a guardian (that doctor's report is what Meyers relied on for her guardianship filing).

Now, Meyers has tried a different path. She's asked for permission to criminally prosecute Banier. France, unlike the United States, allows for private citizens to prosecute someone, but only if the judge allows it. A few days ago, the French judge ruled that Meyers could proceed with the prosecution. This means that not only would Banier face losing the gifts worth more than a billion dollars, but up to three years in prison as well, if Meyers' efforts are successful.

Plus, the judge has ordered Bettencourt to undergo a medical review before March 10th. This may give Meyers grounds to reopen the guardianship request.

Sadly, the legal battle has exposed a rift between Meyers and her mother. Reportedly, the two don't see each other except in passing during meetings at L'Oreal (both are directors of the corporation). Meyers wrote her mother a letter explaining that she was acting out of love, but Bettencourt feels betrayed.

Obviously, it wasn't an easy decision for Meyers. Stay silent and watch her mother give away billions, or go to court and alienate her mother. On the other hand, if Bettencourt truly did give away the property while she was competent, then her daughter may simply be butting in and embarrassing her mother without sufficient cause.

It's never an easy situation for anyone who suspects a loved one is being taken advantage of. Anyone in that predicament should consider speaking with an experienced guardianship attorney. It's important to know your legal rights and seek expert advice to find out when court may be the right choice for your family.

Posted by: Author and probate attorney Andrew W. Mayoras, co-author of Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights! and co-founder and shareholder of The Center for Probate Litigation and The Center for Elder Lawin metro-Detroit, Michigan, which concentrate in probate litigation, estate planning, and elder law. You can email him at awmayoras @ brmmlaw.com.

Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights! The Video Previewtag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a01053645c43a970b0120a65740a1970b2009-11-05T13:09:00-05:002013-04-09T19:26:01-04:00Curious about how celebrity estate errors can help you protect yourself, your family, and your heirs? This video introduces our book, Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights! by giving an overview of will and trust contests, using the Anna Nicole Smith case as an example. Anyone who faces a probate fight like this one has to learn their legal rights! Posted by: Author and probate attorney Andrew W. Mayoras, co-author of Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights! and co-founder and shareholder of The Center for Probate Litigation and The Center for Elder Law in metro-Detroit, Michigan, which concentrate in probate...Danielle & Andy

Curious about how celebrity estate errors can help you protect yourself, your family, and your heirs? This video introduces our book, Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights! by giving an overview of will and trust contests, using the Anna Nicole Smith case as an example. Anyone who faces a probate fight like this one has to learn their legal rights!

New Book To Help Avoid Celebrity Estate Planning Blunderstag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a01053645c43a970b0120a5cbf1bc970b2009-10-07T21:22:43-04:002013-04-09T19:30:42-04:00“Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights!” Explores High-Profile Cases & Offers Expert Advice The highly publicized estate battles of several deceased celebrities have cast a bright spotlight on the importance of having the proper estate planning. Although mega-rich celebrities seem to be affected overwhelmingly by these brutal family squabbles, the new book "Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights!" is designed to help every family, regardless of income level, avoid the financial pitfalls that drained bank accounts and created huge family rifts for the dozens of superstars profiled in the book. “Trial & Heirs” uses real stories to help readers steer...Danielle & Andy

The highly publicized estate battles of several deceased celebrities have cast a bright spotlight on the importance of having the proper estate planning. Although mega-rich celebrities seem to be affected overwhelmingly by these brutal family squabbles, the new book

"Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights!" is designed to help every family, regardless of income level, avoid the financial pitfalls that drained bank accounts and created huge family rifts for the dozens of superstars profiled in the book.

“Trial & Heirs” uses real stories to help readers steer clear of the same celebrity “estate errors” as they plan for their own “heirs.” The stories cover well known legal fights over famous fortunes: including the recent battles over Michael Jackson’s estate, along with other celebrities like Ted Kennedy; Anna Nicole Smith; Brooke Astor; Heath Ledger, Ray Charles; Princess Di; Jimi Hendrix; Frank Sinatra; Martin Luther King Jr.; and Rosa Parks… as well as many others that most people aren’t even aware of.The book gives readers a front row seat in the courtroom while the authors replay the “tabloid drama”, point out what went wrong in these riveting cases, and teach readers how to avoid similar errors.

“Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights!” was written by co-authors Andrew Mayoras and Danielle Mayoras, legacy expert attorneys with strong reputations and extensive experience in estate planning, probate, elder law, and litigation. The husband and wife team are two of the co-founders of The Center for Elder Law, The Center for Special Needs Planning, and The Center for Probate Litigation.

“Here we have common problems that could easily be avoided,” says co-author Andrew Mayoras, a probate litigator who writes the popular Probate Lawyer Blog. “We want to teach people about the importance of proper legacy planning, because these fights don’t just happen to the rich and famous,” he says.Andrew says because his job is battling in the trenches of probate court, he sees first-hand the devastation caused by poor planning.“If by writing this book we help keep families from feuding in court, then we’ve accomplished our mission."

Co-author Danielle Mayoras agrees. “As an estate planner and educator, the most frequent question I’m asked is:‘How do I get my parents to talk about these issues?’This book is the answer,” says co-author Danielle Mayoras, a professional speaker, attorney, and credentialed professional gerontologist. “Our goal was to take a difficult topic that no one wants to talk about and make it fun and entertaining with the use of famous stories."Danielle says they want to spark people into action to protect their families and legacies through the proper estate planning.

The book will soon be released from Wise Circle Books and is listed at $19.95. It is already getting rave reviews from many who have seen advance copies, including: Hollywood producers Karen Baldwin and Ken Wales, national radio talk show host Danny Fontana, famed Hollywood publicist Michael Levine and more.

For more information and to read a free preview of “Trial & Heirs:Famous Fortune Fights!” visit TrialAndHeirs.com.